The Rule of the Eurydice’s Sons

This chapter discusses the rule of all three of Eurydice’s sons (Alexander II, Perdiccas III, and Philip II), but pays less attention to Philip II because his reign has been discussed in so many places at great length. The brief reign of Alexander II was shaped by his initially successful but ultimately disastrous invasion of Thessaly. His failure there led to Theban intervention in Macedonian affairs and then his assassination. It examines claims that Eurydice married his assassin and had a hand in his death. It also considers the possibility that her supposed lover/husband, Ptolemy, briefly reigned. Theban intervention forced Ptolemy to become regent for Alexander II. Alexander, in turn, murdered Ptolemy and ruled on his own until he, along with a much of a Macedonian army, died in a massacre. Philip II then took the throne, dealt with assorted foreign and domestic invasions and threats, rapidly stabilized Macedonia, and initiated its expansion to become the dominant power of the Greek peninsula. The chapter concludes with analysis of the factors that enabled the sons of Eurydice to defeat other Argead claimants.

The Marriage of Eurydice and Her Husband’s Rule

This chapter, after consideration of the preceding dynastic disarray and violence, begins with discussion of the reign of Amyntas III, the husband of Eurydice, and proceeds to Amyntas’ two known marriages. It notes the fundamental problems with chronology that characterize the period and the failures of Amyntas’ reign, particularly the issue of whether he was forced to flee his kingdom once or twice. It also assesses his achievements, chiefly increased dynastic stability, in the later stages of his reign. The chapter then discusses Amyntas’ marriages: he had three sons by Eurydice and three by Gygaea. This chapter argues that Amyntas was polygamous and Gygaea was likely the second of the two wives. Amyntas’ marriage to Eurydice was a political alliance, related to the Illyrian invasion of Macedonia, but whether Eurydice herself was partly Illyrian remains disputed because of the uncertain ethnic identity of her mysterious father Sirras. This chapter considers it likely that her father was Illyrian. The chapter finishes with a discussion of the possible reasons for the consecutive succession of each of Eurydice’s three sons and the failure of any of Gygaea’s sons to rule.

Eurydice’s Public Image during Her Lifetime

This chapter discusses the public image of Eurydice created during her lifetime by herself and by her sons. It begins with analysis of three dedicatory inscriptions she made that puts hers dedications in the context of those made by subsequent royal women. It reflects on the possible nature of her dedication commemorating her late-acquired education and on the ways in which she crafted her public image as a mother of royal sons, as a model for other women. The chapter also examines Eurydice’s dedicatory inscriptions at the sanctuary of Eucleia (a goddess of good repute) and the character of the female statue apparently associated with one of these inscriptions (whether an image of the goddess or portrait of Eurydice). It discusses the entire sanctuary and its remains, the nature of cult worship there, and the possibility that Eurydice was a priestess of the cult and the founder of the sanctuary. The chapter also looks at a third inscription from nearby Palatitsia naming Eurydice. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli has concluded that this inscription was the label for a statue of Eurydice that formed part of a statue group.

Eurydice and Her Sons

Our extant sources are full of contradictions and obscurities about Eurydice’s career. I will assess the available evidence relating to a series of questions about her public career and actions. Was she an adulterer? Was she the murderer (or would be murderer) of her husband and any of her sons? Who was the man named Ptolemy who played such an important part in her life and that of her sons? Did she marry Ptolemy? If she married him, when did she do so, in relation to what events? The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the nature, likely origin, and credibility of our extant sources and with a reflection on the role of fourth-century propaganda in what our extant sources say about Eurydice and an examination of Eurydice’s role as a political actor and faction leader during the 360s.

Introduction

This chapter begins with an overview of Eurydice’s career. It addresses the source problems connected to her life and considers the likely origin of these contradictory accounts. It provides a brief survey of the history of Macedonia prior to her lifetime. It discusses the nature of the kingdom of Macedonia and the character of its monarchy. It analyzes the pattern of succession to the throne within the Argead dynasty. It looks at the role of royal women in Macedonian monarchy, particularly as it related to royal polygamy. Finally, it focuses on royal mothers’ (and sisters’) function as succession advocates.

Eurydice’s Public Image after Her Death

This is a chapter about the public memory (long and short term) of Eurydice in Macedonia and elsewhere in Greece, after her death. It concludes that she died no later than 343/2. It describes the tomb at Vergina Andronikos attributed to Eurydice, paying particular attention to the back wall of the main chamber and to the throne in the main chamber whose back has a painting depicting Persephone and Hades in a chariot. It considers whether the tomb contained a burial of a woman, whether or not she was a royal woman, whether it was indeed the burial of Eurydice herself, and how the tomb fits into the general development of Macedonian tombs. It discusses the Philippeum, a monument Philip II had constructed at Olympia and whether or not Eurydice was one of the five members of the Argead dynasty whose image stood within it. The chapter concludes with analysis of the reasons Eurydice’s great-granddaughter, initially named Adea, took Eurydice’s name at the time she married her half-uncle, Philip III Arrhidaeus. The chapter ends with an overview of the career of Eurydice, arguing that she was a Penelopean figure.